This petition for review on
certiorari[1] emanated
from the complaint for grave oral defamation[2] filed by
Albert P. Tan against petitioner Jerome Castro.

The
facts follow.

On November 11, 2002, Reedley
International School (RIS) dismissed Tans son, Justin Albert (then a Grade 12
student), for violating the terms of his disciplinary probation.[3] Upon
Tans request, RIS reconsidered its decision but imposed non-appealable
conditions such as excluding Justin Albert from participating in the graduation
ceremonies.

Aggrieved, Tan filed a complaint in
the Department of Education (Dep-Ed) for violation of the Manual of Regulation
of Private Schools, Education Act of 1982 and Article 19 of the Civil Code[4] against
RIS. He alleged that the dismissal of his son was undertaken with malice, bad
faith and evident premeditation. After investigation, the Dep-Ed found that RIS
code violation point system allowed the summary imposition of unreasonable
sanctions (which had no basis in fact and in law). The system therefore
violated due process.Hence, the Dep-Ed
nullified it. [5]

Meanwhile, on November 20, 2002, the
Dep-Ed ordered RIS to readmit Justin Albert without any condition.[6] Thus, he
was able to graduate from RIS and participate in the commencement ceremonies
held on March 30, 2003.

After the graduation ceremonies, Tan
met Bernice C. Ching, a fellow parent at RIS. In the course of their
conversation, Tan intimated that he was contemplating a suit against the
officers of RIS in their personal capacities, including petitioner who was the
assistant headmaster.

Ching telephoned petitioner sometime
the first week of April and told him that Tan was planning to sue the officers
of RIS in their personal capacities. Before they hung up, petitioner told
Ching:

Okay, you too, take care and be
careful talking to [Tan], thats dangerous.

Ching then called Tan and informed
him that petitioner said talking to him was dangerous.

Insulted,
Tan filed a complaint for grave oral defamation in the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City against petitioner on August 21, 2003.

On
November 3, 2003, petitioner was charged with grave oral defamation in the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60[7] under
the following Information:

That
on or about the 13th day of March, 2003 in the City of Mandaluyong,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
[petitioner], with deliberate intent of bringing ATTY. ALBERT P. TAN, into
discredit, dishonor, disrepute and contempt, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously speak and utter the following words to Ms. Bernice
C. Ching:

OK, YOU TOO, YOU
TAKE CARE AND BE CAREFUL TALKING TO [TAN], THATS DANGEROUS.

and other words of
similar import of a serious and insulting nature.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Petitioner pleaded not guilty during
arraignment.

The prosecution essentially tried to establish
that petitioner depicted Tan as a dangerous person. Ching testified that
petitioner warned her that talking to Tan was dangerous. Tan, on the other hand, testified that
petitioners statement shocked him as it portrayed him as someone capable of
committing undesirable acts. He added that petitioner probably took offense because
of the complaint he filed against RIS in the Dep-Ed.

For his defense, petitioner denied harboring
ill-feelings against Tan despite the latters complaint against RIS in the
Dep-Ed. Although he admitted conversing with Ching (whom he considered as a
close acquaintance) on the telephone a few days after RIS 2003 commencement
exercises, petitioner asserted that he never said or insinuated that Tan or
talking to Tan was dangerous. On cross-examination, however, he did not
categorically deny the veracity of Chings statement.

The MeTC found that Chings
statements in her affidavit and in open court were consistent and that she did
not have any motive to fabricate a false statement. Petitioner, on the other
hand, harbored personal resentment, aversion and ill-will against Tan since the
Dep-Ed compelled RIS to readmit his son.Thus, the MeTC was convinced that petitioner told Ching talking to Tan was
dangerous and that he uttered the statement with the intention to insult Tan
and tarnish his social and professional reputation.

In a decision dated December 27, 2005,
the MeTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of grave oral
defamation:[8]

WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered finding accused, Jerome Castro GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Oral Defamation, sentencing him
therefore, in accordance to Article 358(1) of the Revised Penal Code and
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 months and 1 day
of arresto mayor as maximum.

On
appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the factual findings of the
MeTC. However, in view of the animosity between the parties, it found
petitioner guilty only of slight oral defamation. But because Tan filed his
complaint in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City only on
August 21, 2003 (or almost five months from discovery), the RTC ruled that
prescription had already set in; it therefore acquitted petitioner on that
ground.[9]

On April 19, 2007, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing
the decision of the RTC.[10] It
contended that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it downgraded
petitioners offense to slight oral defamation. The RTC allegedly misappreciated
the antecedents which provoked petitioner to utter the allegedly defamatory
statement against Tan.

The CA found that the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion when it misapprehended the totality of the
circumstances and found petitioner guilty only of slight oral defamation. Thus,
the CA reinstated the MeTC decision.[11]

Petitioner moved for reconsideration
but it was denied.[12] Hence,
this recourse.

Petitioner basically contends that the
CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari inasmuch as the
OSG raised errors of judgment (i.e., that the RTC misappreciated the
evidence presented by the parties) but failed to prove that the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion. Thus, double jeopardy attached when the RTC
acquitted him.

We grant the petition.

No
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.[13] This
constitutional mandate is echoed in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
which provides:

Section 7. Former
conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an accused has been
convicted or acquitted or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction,
upon a valid complaint or in information or other formal charge sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to
the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the
case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged or for any
attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the
former complaint or information.

x x
x x x xx x x

Under this provision, double jeopardy
occurs upon (1) a valid indictment (2) before a competent court (3) after
arraignment (4) when a valid plea has been entered and (5) when the accused was
acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without the express consent of the accused.[14]Thus, an acquittal, whether ordered by the
trial or appellate court, is final and unappealable on the ground of double
jeopardy.[15]

The only exception is when the trial
court acted with grave abuse of discretion or, as we held in Galman v.
Sandiganbayan,[16]when
there was mistrial. In such instances, the OSG can assail the said judgment in
a petition for certiorari establishing that the State was deprived of a fair
opportunity to prosecute and prove its case.[17]

The rationale behind this exception
is that a judgment rendered by the trial court with grave abuse of discretion was
issued without jurisdiction. It is, for this reason, void.Consequently, there is no double jeopardy.

In this case, the OSG merely assailed
the RTCs finding on the nature of petitioners statement, that is, whether it
constituted grave or slight oral defamation. The OSG premised its allegation of
grave abuse of discretion on the RTCs erroneous evaluation and assessment of
the evidence presented by the parties.

What the OSG therefore questioned
were errors of judgment (or those involving misappreciation of evidence or
errors of law). However, a court, in a
petition for certiorari, cannot review the public respondents evaluation of
the evidence and factual findings.[18] Errors
of judgment cannot be raised in a Rule 65 petition as a writ of certiorari can
only correct errors of jurisdiction (or those involving the commission of grave
abuse of discretion).[19]

Because the OSG did not raise errors
of jurisdiction, the CA erred in taking cognizance of its petition and, worse, in
reviewing the factual findings of the RTC.[20] We
therefore reinstate the RTC decision so as not to offend the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy.

At most, petitioner could have been
liable for damages under Article 26 of the Civil Code[21]:

Article 26. Every
person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they
may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief:

x x xx x xx x x

(3)Intriguing to cause another to be alienated
from his friends;

x
x xx x xx x x

Petitioner is reminded that, as an
educator, he is supposed to be a role model for the youth.As such, he should always act with justice,
give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.[22]

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.
The August 29, 2007 decision and December 5, 2007 resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98649 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
November 20, 2006 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City,
Branch 212 is REINSTATED. Petitioner Jerome Castro is ACQUITTED of
slight oral defamation as defined and penalized in Article 358 of the Revised
Penal Code.

No
pronouncement as to costs.

SO
ORDERED.

RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice

Chairperson

ANTONIO T. CARPIOADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Associate JusticeAssociate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T
I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above resolution had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.

Article
358. Slander. Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in
its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it
is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

[3]Letter of RIS directress Nellie
Aquino-Ong to Mr. and Mrs. Albert Tan. Rollo, p. 301. According to RIS, Justin
Albert accumulated 34 code violations including public display of affection and
conduct unbecoming of a gentleman. The maximum number of code violation was 25.

[4]Article 19. Every person must, in
the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.